Bhagwati Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand and others

termination was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.20957 of 1992, Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (“the first petition”), in which, on 11.06.1992, by an interim order, the operation of the impugned order was stayed until further orders. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.06.1992, passed in the first petition, again on 24.08.1993, the petitioner was appointed as Health Worker (Female) as Sub Centre Mehroli, 2 Primary Health Centre Deghat, District Almora. The first petition was never transferred to this Court. The petitioner tried to get the status of the first petition pending in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, but she could not pursue that matter. In the year 2022, the petitioner came to know that the first petition has already been dismissed on 17.04.2000. The petitioner applied for the copy of the order dated 17.04.2000, passed in the first petition and also submitted a recall application along with an application to transfer of the record of the first petition to this Court. The application to recall the order dated 17.04.2000 is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner began when on 17.06.2025, the CMO passed the impugned order, whereby relying on the opinion of the Government Counsel the services of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. It is impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petition was filed by the petitioner, in which, an interim order had already been passed. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner could not get in touch with lawyer though tried on multiple occasions to pursue the first petition. It is only in the year 2022, she came to know that the first petition had already been dismissed on 17.04.2000. Thereafter, she has already filed a recall application, as well as an application for transfer of the first petition to this Court, which is still pending. It is argued that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated, instead a show cause notice should have been issued to her; she would have been in a position to answer, as to why her services should not be terminated. 3

5. It is argued that, in fact, service of nine employees were continued by the impugned order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, passed in the first petition. Out of which, as far as the petitioner knows, the services of four employees had already been regularized by the respondent department.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner was continued on service by an interim order, passed in the first petition and the first petition itself has been dismissed. Therefore, her right to continue in the service does not survive.

7. There are two aspects of the matter:- (i) legality of the impugned order dated 17.06.2025, by which, the petitioner’s services had been terminated; and (ii) the aspect of entertaining the instant petition by this Court.

8. It is undisputed that once when the services of the petitioner was terminated, she did file the first petition, in which, on 11.06.1992, the interim order was passed.

9. The first petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Allahabd High Court on 17.04.2000, when the Court writes, “By the efflux of time, this petition appears to have become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. However, there will no order as to cost.”

10. It is the case of the petitioner that she had already filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.04.2000, passed in the first petition; as had also filed an application for transfer of the first petition to this Court. 4

11. The services of the petitioner were continued by virtue of interim order dated 11.06.1992, passed in the first petition. Her cause was in subsistence in the first petition. At one stage, the interim order has already been discharged in the first petition by order dated 17.04.2000, which means, the right to continue in the service, which was granted to the petitioner by virtue of interim order dated 11.06.1992, passed in the first petition had come to an end on 17.04.2000. Based on order dated 17.04.2000, passed in the first petition now, the termination order has been passed. The petitioner is aware of her right to seek redressal of her grievance in the first petition. As admittedly, she had moved an application for recall of order dated 17.04.2000, passed in the first petition and had also filed an application for transfer of the first petition to this Court. That recall application, as well as the transfer application, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is still pending. The petitioner is agitating her cause or seeking redressal of her grievances in the first petition. Therefore, simultaneously the instant petition may not be entertained and on this ground alone, the instant petition may be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

12. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

08.07.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE4 0699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA